How Quickly is C&C Catching on?

[Jackal42]

Particle_Man, your idea has been posted in the CKG forum along with your name (screen and real) in case there is any credit to give. Thanks for letting me post it. I really think that's something which should go in the CKG.

 

[Numion]

The interest of Dragonsfoot forums is actually a negative in my book.

Anyway, I think that removing stuff from a game is a lot easier than adding stuff, so the argument that anything missing from C&C can be added is an empty one. "Well, you can houserule it" has always been a weak argument when it comes to discussing merits of RPG systems. I pay good money for the games I buy - I expect them to be 'complete'.

Strike three for me about C&C is the annoying habit of people actually spending more time on 3.5e's shortcomings rather than C&Cs strengths when trying to 'sell' the game. This doesn't connect well with the large amount of stuff thats recommended to be houseruled in from 3e ..

 

[Breakdaddy]

The interest of Dragonsfoot forums is actually a negative in my book.

Anyway, I think that removing stuff from a game is a lot easier than adding stuff, so the argument that anything missing from C&C can be added is an empty one. "Well, you can houserule it" has always been a weak argument when it comes to discussing merits of RPG systems. I pay good money for the games I buy - I expect them to be 'complete'.

Strike three for me about C&C is the annoying habit of people actually spending more time on 3.5e's shortcomings rather than C&Cs strengths when trying to 'sell' the game. This doesn't connect well with the large amount of stuff thats recommended to be houseruled in from 3e ..

As someone who has tried to remove AoOs and some skills from 3.5e I can say from watching the domino effect of broken things that the argument is strong. You have a good point about the turn the discussion has taken in favor of discussing the 3.x weaknesses over the C&C strengths, but considering the fact that this board is heavily 3.x weighted, I suspect these arguments are more for comparative analysis then as some sort of attempt to undermine the validity of 3.x as a system. Anyone who is really interested in finding out the merits of C&C should head over to the Troll Lord Games URL and check their forums. If you like 3.x as-is and wouldnt bother taking most things out of the game to begin with then, as has been stated several times before in this thread, keep playing 3.x! I dont think anyone here wants you to do anything but enjoy your games and have fun, if 3.x D&D is how you have fun then that is excellent! I still like 3.5e D&D, but I can see a lot of merit in pacing a more streamlined game with C&C.

 

[Akrasia]

Now, Akrasia, don't go confusing what you actually said with my vague impressions of your taste from some thread you posted in in Novemer or something like that.

Sorry about that.

 

[Akrasia]

The interest of Dragonsfoot forums is actually a negative in my book.

How sweet! We love you too Numion!

Anyway, I think that removing stuff from a game is a lot easier than adding stuff ...

This is is actually incorrect as a generalization. Or, more precisely, it is incorrect if the various elements of the model or game that you start with are all extremely interdependent.

For example, in economics (or, for that matter, any discipline that uses models) it is FAR EASIER to modify a simple model -- including introducing new variables -- than it is to modify a very complex model.

The reason is simple. The more interdependent variables that you have in the model, the harder it is to control for the unintended consequences of altering any one of those variables. In contrast, if you start with a simple model, you can generally predict the likely consequences of either altering one variable, or introducing a new one, on the model as a whole. (I'm being a bit quick and sloppy here, but my general point is correct nonetheless.)

What applies to formal models in economics also applies to game design.

To continue with the analogy...
3E is an extremely complex model (which is often touted as a good thing about 3E, especially how all the different elements are carefully 'balanced' with each other). Altering any single variable (e.g. removing feats) can have all kinds of consequences for the model as a whole.

In contrast, a game like C&C is a (comparatively) simple model. The theorist (or CK) can generally predict and control the consequences of adding or changing one variable.

So modularity is a genuine feature of C&C.

Strike three for me about C&C is the annoying habit of people ....

Well people have annoying habits. And guess what -- you don't have to play with them! What has that got to do with the game itself?
:\

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

This is a good way to look at it. I find the piles and piles of rules in 3.x to be terribly inelegant (functional, however anything but elegant).

Much of 3.x is inelegant:

Spells, many feats, some skills, TURNING UNDEAD (good golly, how did this survive without being converted to the actual, y'know, d20 system?), the XP charts that scale in two different ways, a handful of DCs starting at 11 rather than 10(!), ability modifiers only at half levels and starting from 10(!), AoOs and the action structure, wonky multiplication systems, monster hit dice prior to 3.5's fix...

Like you, I find piles and piles of rules inelegant by default. For a rules-heavy system like (A)D&D, 3.x is quite elegant and some of the d20 variants are even more so. Considering the baggage 3.x came in with (nearly a decade of AD&D 2e, arguably the most inelegant system ever to enjoy wide popularity), its achievement is commendable.

But rules exceptions are the very essence of inelegance: rules that you have to think twice about. I suppose my biggest issue with C&C is that it's a rules-lite system that is a mass of exceptions, including most of the worst offenders that D&D itself was cured of. It may be a lighter, faster system, a more modular one (although I've brutally sliced and diced d20 with very little ill effect, so I do question that last).

I don't consider Allen Iverson terribly elegant compared to, say, Michael Jordan. AI is certainly quicker than MJ, and possibly more maneuverable, but speed and lightness are different from elegance.

As to the modularity of 3.x... IF you assume that the CR system means much of anything outside of a controlled four-player four-archetype party in a dungeon environment, and that the game is balanced by default, then messing with the system could cause imbalances. IF a CR 10 druid and a CR 10 dragon posed an equivalent challenge to a CR 10 ranger and a CR 10 giant, I'd be worried. As it stands, I'll happily modify 3.x and do my own balancing, just as I have to with what WotC (and other publishers) give me.

 

[trollwad]

Numion, you certainly dont have to look at C&C if you dont want to! C&C is NOT all things to all people. My main goal on these boards and the purpose of my lengthy description was to describe C&C to potentially interested parties, not to tell everyone that 3.5 sucks. To the contrary, I play in and enjoy a regular 3.5e game. On the other hand, I think I enjoy playing C&C more, and I get FAR FAR FAR more pleasure out of dming C&C than I do out of dming 3.5e (especially after about 5th level) in part due to what I perceive as the unbelievable prep time required for a 'proper' 3.5 game.

When you say that people are talking about 3e's shortcomings too much, understand that on THIS board it probably makes sense to talk about C&C vis-a-vis 3.5e, whereas on the Dragonsfoot board it makes sense to talk about C&C vis-a-vis 1e and Basic. I just think that people are trying to consider their audience's frame of reference with their comparisons.

 

[Akrasia]

.... I suppose my biggest issue with C&C is that it's a rules-lite system that is a mass of exceptions, including most of the worst offenders that D&D itself was cured of. ...

I am not really sure I know what you are talking about here. Could you be more precise?

Based on some earlier incorrect things that you have said about the game (e.g. that it has race/class restrictions), I would be curious to know exactly what you are referring to here.

 

[Treebore]

The interest of Dragonsfoot forums is actually a negative in my book.

Anyway, I think that removing stuff from a game is a lot easier than adding stuff, so the argument that anything missing from C&C can be added is an empty one. "Well, you can houserule it" has always been a weak argument when it comes to discussing merits of RPG systems. I pay good money for the games I buy - I expect them to be 'complete'.

Strike three for me about C&C is the annoying habit of people actually spending more time on 3.5e's shortcomings rather than C&Cs strengths when trying to 'sell' the game. This doesn't connect well with the large amount of stuff thats recommended to be houseruled in from 3e ..

I believe you have seriously misinterpreted something. C&C is a "complete" game. As complete as any other game. However, if you want to import game mechanices from OD&D, 1E, 2E, or 3E you can easily do so BECAUSE C&C has been intentionally designed to do so.

So if you like C&C in its most basic form, great you have a complete game system. If you would like it better with the 3E skill system or feat system, great you can easily "houserule" it into your game. If you like the multi-classing or dual classing rules from 2E, great! You can easily "houserule" them into your game as well. Not to mention any other houserule that you think improves upon any aspect of the game.

C&C is not designed to allow you to easily import ideas from other games. C&C does. That makes it a far more powerful system than 3E to me.

Yes, I realize that 3E can be as simple as I want it to be, I realize I can adapt anything I want to fit into the 3E rules set, but C&C is DESIGNED to make the simplification inherent and to minimize the work/effort of converting ideas. At least ideas I want to steal from any old edition of D&D, 3E, or Hackmaster.

I haven't checked into it yet, but I bet I can easily adapt some of the classes and rules that I like from Palladium, not to mention Green Ronin's skill based class books, etc...

So C&C's built in versatility has me classify it as a powerful system that allows any DM to have the "rules set" be tailored to exactly what they and their players want, with as minimal an effort as possible, even if that means no modifications.

That, to me, is C&C's over riding selling point.


As for those of you who seem to think us old time gamers are waxing nostalgic, maybe you should consider the possibility that because we have played for so long, with many different systems, that we may actually know a good thing when we see it.

Do I think C&C will "beat out" WOTC/3E? No. But I sure wouldn't be upset if it did. I just hope it is successful enough to be considered "worth doing" by the Troll Lords, and to stick around long enough to make me happy.

 

[DMScott]

It seems like there's a real trend to the 1E "feel" and rules lite movement these days (someone already did a thread about the rules-lite phenomenon)...

I was pretty disappointed when I saw the C&C book - some relatively important stuff seems to have not made it in. It looks like it's being marketed more as a nostalgic fad than a truly robust and complete game system. I dunno whether that's a good marketing decision or not, but I do know that it means it ain't the game for me.

OTOH, while talking with some buddies about what went wrong with C&C, we tossed around some ideas on rules-light games, and that kinda lead us to take a stab at trying a relatively rules-light, grim 'n' gritty type of game. We're using Chaosium's old Basic Role-Playing rules as the framework (with some houserules for magic and such), and Harn as the game world - had to reach deep into the wayback machine to find those. Looks like it could be fun.